2025 (11) TMI 843 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty under Section 78 Finance Act set aside for port/renting and reverse-charge GTA services; no fraud proven

M/s. Seaport Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai

CESTAT CHENNAI - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.78 Finance Act relating to port/renting and reverse-charge GTA services. The ... Levy of penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Port Service - Renting of Immovable Property service - liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism in respect of GTA Services provided by the appellant - HELD THAT:- There are no disputes as regards the facts are concerned, nor has the Revenue denied the payment of tax by the Appellant though in part, before Show Cause Notice and, in any case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the non-payment of a part of the tax by the Appellant was for the reason of fraud or collusion or wilfulness mis-statement or suppression of facts, etc. It is the settled position of the law that even mere allegation as to fraud, etc. is not sufficient, the Revenue has to substantiate the same, which is not the case here. The levy of penalty is uncalled for - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether service tax liability for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services during the periods in dispute falls on the service provider or on the recipients under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), and whether the adjudicating authority can confirm demand on the provider for non-production of proof that recipients discharged the tax. 2. Whether penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is sustainable where the assessee (transport agent) remitted substantial portions of the assessed tax prior to issuance of the show cause notice and the Revenue does not allege or substantiate fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement/suppression. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - RCM liability for GTA services: Legal framework For the relevant periods, statutory provisions and notifications place the obligation to discharge service tax on certain specified recipients when GTA services are provided; the law contemplates shifting of liability from the service provider to the recipient where recipients fall within prescribed categories and are liable to pay freight. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the appellant's own case for a different period, applying the same legal analysis and outcome to the periods under appeal. Interpretation and reasoning The Court reasoned that where the provider establishes that its service recipients fall within the categories specified by statute and are liable to pay the freight, the provider is under no obligation to pay service tax on GTA services because the onus to discharge tax rests on those recipients. The adjudicating authority erred in confirming demand against the provider on the ground that the provider did not prove payment by recipients. The statute neither mandates the provider to prove that recipients discharged the tax nor provides that non-payment by recipients automatically reverts liability to the provider. Further, where recipients have communicated to the enforcement authorities that they discharged the tax, the Department, if in doubt, should have proceeded independently against those recipients rather than continuing to demand proof from the provider. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Where statutory RCM applies to GTA services and the provider shows the recipients belong to specified categories liable to pay freight, the provider is not liable to discharge service tax; the Department cannot sustain a demand on the provider merely because the provider has not produced proof of payment by recipients. This holding is essential to the decision. Obiter: Remarks concerning the practical expectation that the Department should proceed against recipients when doubts exist are ancillary but supportive of the ratio. Conclusion The confirmed demand for service tax on GTA services against the provider (to the extent contested) was set aside; the Tribunal allowed the appeal on this issue, applying the prior bench's ratio to the periods in dispute. Cross-reference See also the Tribunal's prior final order for the appellant (same bench) which articulated that the provider's duty to rebut demand does not extend to proving recipients' discharge of tax and that non-payment by recipients does not automatically shift liability back to the provider. Issue 2 - Levy of penalty under Section 78 where tax remitted and no allegation/substantiation of fraud Legal framework Section 78 empowers imposition of penalty in relation to service tax defaults; however, imposition depends on facts including whether non-payment arises from fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and the general principle that penalty should not be levied mechanically where statutory conditions justifying penalty are absent. Precedent Treatment The Tribunal applied settled law that mere allegation of fraud, etc., is insufficient; the Revenue must substantiate such allegations before penalty can be sustained. Interpretation and reasoning The Tribunal found no factual dispute as to payment of tax (partly remitted before issuance of the show cause notice), and the Revenue did not deny payment nor allege or substantiate fraud, collusion, or willful suppression. In absence of such substantiation, imposition of penalty under Section 78 was held to be unwarranted. The Court emphasized that the Revenue must prove the exceptional grounds (fraud etc.) necessary to attract penalty; absent proof, penalty is inappropriate even if some tax remained unpaid at some point. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Penalty under Section 78 cannot be sustained where the assessee remitted substantial tax before issuance of the show cause notice and the Revenue fails to substantiate allegations of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement/suppression. This is dispositive of the penalty issue. Obiter: Observations about the timing of remittance and the Department's obligation to establish culpability provide contextual support but are not independent grounds for decision beyond the ratio stated. Conclusion The levy of penalty under Section 78 was set aside and the appeal was allowed to that extent; the Tribunal found the penalty uncalled for on the facts and law.